[Mall of Shame] Second Round against Fettchenhauers Injunction
Temporarily prohibited? Is there no labour conflict here?
What is at stake in the struggle over this temporary injunction, is the union’s right to make adequate use of the term “labour conflict”, going beyond the narrow limits of its legal definition – as in a case, for example, when exploited workers fight back in the aftermath. When the responsible persons, as in the case of the Mall of Berlin, attempt to hide their responsibility for working conditions behind a jungle of sub-sub-sub constructions, the appropriate union response is to name all involved floors and make them responsible – this is what FAU Berlin did. To only call the case of Mall of Berlin “a conflict” is rather inadequate. It’s time to recognize that the actions have to be considered being part of complex labour conflict measures.
What happened? FCL boss Fettchenhauer obtained the temporary injunction against the grass roots union in January 2015, thereby prohibiting FAU Berlin, amongst other things, to declare that the workers’ case resulted in a huge and negative press echo for the responsible persons. In first instance, this injunction has been annulled by the court; a decision to which Fettchenhauer appealed. A subsequently negotiated agreement has first been nullified by Fettchenhauer, in order to finally be accepted - the reason for which a court decision did not happen. FAU Berlin did not get disturbed by these procedures and manoeuvres and continued to fight for its members' rights. The union still can expose the role of FCL - and it will do so!
STILL NOT LOVING FCL!
More information is to be found in the German version of this article.
